2012 MLT Dues

Notice 2

Council Highlights 5

Continuing

Competence

Program Audit 10

Hearing Tribunal

Decisions 10

PD Symposium 14

THE OBJECTIVE LENS

President and ED/R Message

The College receives numerous inquiries on the general conduct process and the expec-tations of the College for witnesses, employ-ers, and members. Unless an individual has had a complaint of alleged unprofessional conduct directed against them, the conduct process is unfamiliar to most individuals. Part 4 of the Health Professions Act (HPA) outlines the conduct process in detail; however, to the average reader this to can be confusing with multiple references to sections and subsec-tions. The College has provided an overview of the conduct process with answers to your

most frequently asked questions.

What is “unprofessional conduct?”

Section 1(1)(pp) of the HPA defines unpro-fessional conduct as one or more of the fol-lowing, whether or not it is disgraceful or

dishonorable:

(i) displaying a lack of knowledge of or lack of skill or judgment in the provision of profes-sional services; (ii) contravention of this Act, a code of ethics or standards of practice; (iii) contravention of another enactment that applies to the profession; (iv) representing or holding out that a person was a regulated member and in good standing while the person’s registration or practice per-mit was suspended or cancelled; (v) representing or holding out that person’s registration or practice permit is not subject to conditions when it is or misrepresenting the conditions; (vi) failure or refusal (A) to comply with the requirements of the continuing competence program, or (B) to co‑operate with a competence committee or a person appointed under section 11 undertaking a practice visit; (vii) failure or refusal

(A) to comply with an agreement that is part of a ratified settlement, (B) to comply with a request of or co‑ operate with an investigator, (C) to undergo an examination under section 118, or (D) to comply with a notice to attend or a notice to produce under Part 4; (viii) contravening an order under Part 4, con-ditions imposed on a practice permit or a di-rection under section 118(4); (ix) carrying on the practice of the regulated profession with a person who is contravening section 98 or an order under Part 4 or con-ditions imposed on a practice permit or a di-rection under section 118(4); (x) carrying on the practice of the regulated profession of physicians, surgeons, osteopaths, dentists, chiropractors or optometrists on be-half of a corporation that does not meet the requirements of sections 104 to 115 or as a partner of a partnership that does not meet the requirements of section 98(3); (xi) carrying on the practice of the regulated profession of physical therapists on behalf of a corporation that does not meet the require-ments of Schedule 20; (xii) conduct that harms the integrity of the regulated profession; (qq) “unprofessional conduct fines table” means the unprofessional conduct fines table in

Part 10.

What is the conduct process?

The HPA devotes section 4 to outlining the legislated requirements of the conduct proc-ess beginning with how to make a complaint, including the requirements for a formal com-plaint to be in writing and be signed by the complainant. The HPA outlines provisions a Complaints Director may exercise when act-ing upon a complaint. Some of the options

(Continued on page 6)

Inside this issue:

May 2011 Volume 4, Issue 2

A L B E R T A C O L L E G E O F M E D I C A L L A B O R A T O R Y T E C H N O L O G I S T S

Under the Microscope

ILLUMINATING THE DARKFIELD

DID YOU KNOW?

The College is redevel-

oping the website with

an anticipated launch

date of July 1, 2011 . . .

Watch for more!

Page 2

Under the Microscope

2010 ANNUAL REPORTS ARE

AVAILABLE ON-LINE:

Member Access - Publications

or can be mailed upon request

Renewal Notice for 2012

MLT Practice Permit Renewals will be on-line ONLY

September 15: Renewal period begins

September 15 - October 31: early bird discount ($550)

November 1-30: regular dues ($600)

December 1-31: regular dues plus processing fees ($725)

All voluntary renewals (MLA, Associate, Retired) will continue as

hard-copy ($160)

Council approved funding for National Medical Laboratory

Week activities for:

Wetaskiwin Hospital and Care Center

NAIT

St. Mary’s Hospital, Camrose

Red Deer Hospital lab

Congratulations on a job well done and thank you for promot-

ing the profession!

2011 National Medical Laboratory Week

Congratulations to Linda Lowartz, who obtained a CSMLS CPS Certificate in General Medical Laboratory Technology!

Bursary Award

Deadline: Dec. 31, 2011

Award of Merit

Deadline: June 1, 2011

Award of Distinction

Deadline: June 1, 2011

YOUR STAGE

CARTER, Kathleen KLONTZ, Ellen

Page 3

Volume 4, Issue 2

For more information and application forms, visit our website under:

Member Access - Award Program

AWARD OF

DISTINCTION

College Professional Development

Certificate Recipients

2010 Bursary Award Recipient Congratulations to Hilary Dake who

received a 2010 College Bursary Award!

YOUR FIELD-OF-VIEW

Page 4

Under the Microscope

Volunteer - Have a Voice

Volunteers are integral and essential to the mandated regulatory operations of the College

as outlined in the Health Professions Act (HPA). As per the HPA, the governing body of the

College consists of the Council, which includes a president, regulated members, non-voting

members as provided for in the Bylaws, as well as public members who are appointed by

the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

One of the privileges of a self-regulating body is the opportunity to impact the future di-

rection of your College and ultimately, your profession. The College encourages members

to provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, but there is no better way to see

your ideas come to fruition than to be a part of the team. The College supports you by pro-

viding information, resources, and training to assist you in fulfilling your volunteer role. This

is “your College” so get involved and play a part.

Approved Annual Report to the Minister of Health

Approved the 2010 Audited Financial Statement

Approved Bursary Award funding

Approved funding requests for NMLW activities

Expanded the Legislation Sub-Committee to include up to

nine members (previous was five)

Archived the Registration Committee and the Continuing

Competence Committee

Council Highlights: March 12, 2011

Page 5

Volume 4, Issue 2

Call for Nominations 2012 College Council

We are currently looking for three MLTs to fill the role of President Elect and two Councilor positions! Deadline: May 27, 2011 Nomination forms are available at www.acmlt.org and follow: College Governance / Council / Nomination Process / Call for Nominations

for the Complaints Director in-clude forwarding the complaint to an investigation, requesting an expert written report on the sub-ject matter of the complaint, dis-missal of the complaint, or mak-ing a direction under section 118 of the HPA for an incapacity as-sessment. Upon receipt of an in-vestigator or expert report, the Complaints Director may forward the matter to the Hearings Direc-tor to schedule a Hearing Tribu-nal hearing, or may dismiss the complaint if it is deemed to be trivial or vexatious, or if there is insufficient or no evidence of un-professional conduct. If the mat-ter is directed to a Hearing Tri-bunal hearing, there is a formal exchange of evidence presented before the Hearing Tribunal. The Hearing Tribunal deliberates the evidence and renders a binding written decision regarding inno-cence or guilt on the charges at hand, and if there are one or more findings of guilt, the Hear-ing Tribunal also provides written penalty sanctions relative to the

severity of the charges.

What is a Hearing Tribunal?

The HPA outlines the composition for a Hearing Tribunal, which includes regulated College mem-bers and representative(s) of the general public which are ap-pointed by government. The pub-

(Continued from page 1) lic member component must com-prise a minimum 25% of the Hearing Tribunal. The College refers to MLTs who participate on Hearing Tribunals as members of the Regulated Member Resource List (RMRL). The HPA stipulates the College must have a minimum of four members on this list to call upon to serve on Hearing Tribu-nals as needed. The College currently has eight RMRL mem-bers who serve on Hearing Tribu-nals. Regulated members who volunteer for Hearing Tribunals have taken extensive training and participate in annual educa-tion to ensure they are abreast of

any trends in administrative law.

Do I have to participate in an

investigation or hearing?

Pursuant to the HPA, regulated members of a regulatory body must comply with all requests to participate in investigations and/or hearings. Participation in in-vestigations and/or hearings is a professional obligation of all regulated members regardless of whether their conduct is the sub-ject of the investigation, and fail-ure or refusal to participate is in contravention of the MLT Stan-dards of Practice and Code of Ethics. Furthermore, the HPA in-cludes another definition of un-professional conduct as “contravention of this Act, a code of ethics or standards of prac-

tice”.

Why are so many witnesses called in some cases? Is this not increasing the costs for the ACMLT as well as the stress for those involved in the investiga-

tion?

Pursuant to section 63 of the

HPA, an investigator may:

require any person to an-swer any relevant questions and direct the person to an-swer the questions under

oath,

require any person to give

the investigator any docu-ment, substance, or thing relevant to the investigation that the person possesses or that is under the control of

the person

require any person to give up possession of any docu-ment to allow the investiga-tor to take it away to copy, in which case the investigator must return it within a rea-sonable time of being given it but must return it no later than after a hearing is com-

pleted

The College investigator is a “professional interviewer” and approaches each complaint on a case-by-case basis. Pursuant to section 52 of the HPA, an investi-gator in the course of an investi-gation may investigate all mat-ters related to the conduct of the investigated person that could give rise to a finding of unprofes-sional conduct. The investigator is not purposefully invasive and disruptive to an organization and its staff, but rather has to exer-cise due diligence to ensure all evidence is collected and pre-sented to the College Complaints

Director.

The College is mindful of costs related to conduct, and encour-ages a thorough investigation at the onset. If an investigator con-cludes an investigation and the Complaints Director determines the report is not complete or the investigation was not properly conducted, the Complaints Direc-tor must direct the same investi-

Page 6

Under the Microscope

Page 7

Volume 4, Issue 2

gator or another to undertake further investigation and submit a subsequent report, or may re-quest an expert to assess and prepare a written report on the subject matter of the complaint or matters arising from the investi-gation of the complaint.

Why do I feel like I am on “trial” when I am called as a College witness at a hearing

tribunal hearing?

Individuals who appear on be-half of the College as witnesses are never purposefully made to feel like they are being interro-gated or their professional integ-rity and conduct is being judged. The atmosphere in a Hearing Tribunal can at times be tense as an individual’s professional ca-reer and reputation is at stake. The rules of criminal law do not apply so the College does not have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather on the balance of probabilities. The College is doing its best to pro-tect the public and the profession, and the opposing legal counsel is also doing its best to exonerate their client. In an attempt to de-fend their client, opposing legal counsel may “attack” a witness to attempt to discredit them.

What are the privacy obliga-tions of the College with inves-

tigations and hearings?

The College respects the confi-dentiality of all members during the course of an investigation and Hearing Tribunal hearing. In some cases, interviewed members are privy to sensitive information; however, they are briefed on the confidential nature of the inter-view and any matters which are

(Continued from page 6) discussed. The College expects all regulated members who are interviewed or called as a wit-ness at a Hearing Tribunal hear-ing to maintain confidentiality regarding the matters and infor-mation discussed. The “duty of confidentiality” is one of the pro-fessional obligations all regu-

lated members have.

Does the College ever ask the complainant for penalty sanc-

tion suggestions?

If one or more findings of unpro-fessional conduct are made by a Hearing Tribunal, the College

Complaints Director, in consulta-tion with legal counsel, submits penalty sanction recommenda-tions (including general orders, fines, and costs) to a Hearing Tribunal, but the ultimate discre-tion to make orders rests with the Hearing Tribunal. If an employer has an appropriate penalty sanc-tion for an accused member, they could present this to the College for consideration; however the College must weigh several fac-tors when proposing penalties to a Hearing Tribunal. Such factors include the harm to public, harm to integrity of the profession, the number of previous offences, cooperation of the accused, re-medial or rehabilitative options,

and any mitigating or extenuat-

ing circumstances.

Under what circumstances would a MLT have their ACMLT practice permit suspended or

cancelled?

Under the HPA a Hearing Tribu-nal is given the authority to sus-pend or permanently cancel a practice permit and registration with a written order if a finding of unprofessional conduct is made. This type of order is only made where the unprofessional conduct is of a very serious na-ture, public safety is compro-

mised, or both.

The College Registrar can cancel a regulated member’s practice permit and registration, after 30 days written notice, if the regu-lated member does not apply for a practice permit or is in default of payment of the appropriate

dues/fee.

The College Complaints Director can also direct a regulated mem-ber cease providing professional services if the Complaints Director has grounds to believe a regu-late member is incapacitated whether or not a complaint has been received (section 118 of the HPA).

If I am suspended or terminated from my MLT position, does the

College need to know?

Section 57(1) of the HPA states “if, because of conduct that in the opinion of the employer is unpro-fessional conduct, the employ-ment of a regulated member is terminated or suspended or the regulated member resigns, the

(Continued on page 8)

Page 8

Under the Microscope

The College received eight complaints in 2008, nine complaints in 2009, and seven complaints of unprofessional conduct in 2010. Most complaints involved a detailed investigation and hearing with legal counsel both for the College and the Hearing Tribunal. A simple case can range from $15,000 to $20,000 and complex multi-day

hearings increase costs to over $100,000.

Who can I talk to if I have further questions?

Individuals can contact the College Hearings Director or College Complaints Director at any time with questions. In some cases, an individual may be directed to speak with College legal counsel if a matter presents a conflict of interest for the College Complaints Director or Hearings

Director.

Myron Pilip, MLT 2011 College President

Lori Kmet, MLT, BSc (MLS), MBA Executive Director/Registrar/

Complaints Director

employer must give notice of that conduct to the complaints director”. Section 57(2) states “on being given notice under subsection (1), the complaints director must (a) treat the employer as a complainant (b) despite not receiving a complaint under section 54, treat the notice as a complaint in accordance with section 56 and (c) notify the employer and the regulated mem-ber accordingly”. It is important to note that “employment” includes being engaged to pro-vide professional services on a full-time or part-time basis as a paid or unpaid employee, con-sultant, contractor, or volunteer. The employer retains the discretion to determine the nature of the conduct of the regulated member and whether or not this qualifies as unprofessional conduct as defined by the HPA. The HPA does not require an employer to report all suspen-sions, terminations, or resignations to the Col-lege; only those due to conduct that is “unprofessional” for a regulated member of the

College.

How many complaints does the College re-

ceive and why are costs so high?

(Continued from page 7)

Page 9

Volume 4, Issue 2

Page 10

Under the Microscope

2011 Continuing Competence Program Audit Statistics

The following data summarizes Continuing Competence Program (CCP) statistics for the annual audit con-

ducted on February 25-26, 2011.

81 members were selected for audit

4 members did not submit any documentation

6 members required remedial/additional documentation

69 members with an initial pass

1 member did not qualify for audit

1 member requested an extension

For more details see the College 2010 Annual Report available on-line.

Hearing Tribunal Decisions

The following Hearing Tribunal proceedings were held and written Hearing Tribunal decisions were rendered

in 2011. Findings have been presented without the publication of identifying information. The discipline sum-

maries are not intended to provide comprehensive information on the complaint, details of the investigation,

or Hearing Tribunal proceedings; they are for educational purposes only.

Case 1

A Hearing Tribunal made a finding of unprofessional conduct against a member who did not spin patient

samples in accordance with the employer’s established standard laboratory operating procedures and/or

College’s Standards of Practice and did not run quality control material and/or background instrument

checks in accordance with the employer’s established standard laboratory

operating procedures and/or the College’s Standards of Practice. The

member admitted to the unprofessional conduct and signed an Agreed

Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty in conjunction with

the College. The Hearing Tribunal ordered fines in the amount of

$1500.00 and successful completion of a professional ethics course.

The Hearing Tribunal reminds all MLTs of the importance of pre-analytical procedures and processes (including centrifugation) and the importance of placing patient

safety in higher regard than the time involved to perform a procedure.

Case 2

A Hearing Tribunal made a finding of unprofessional conduct against a member who deliberately breached patient confidentiality and accessed medical information on family members and co-workers on numerous occasions without appropriate authorization. The member admitted to the unprofessional con-duct and signed an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty in conjunction with the College. The Hearing Tribunal ordered fines in the amount of $1750.00 and successful completion of a

professional ethics course.

Page 11

We should all view patient health informa-

tion, even our own personal laboratory test

results, as the laboratory’s commodity. We

don’t own it and are very privileged to ac-

cess it in performing our MLT roles.

Most employers’ privacy and information

security management policies are drafted

to meet information security requirements

as defined by the government, the Health

Information Act, and other applicable stat-

utes. Employers recognize the need to

have effective mechanisms to protect the

privacy of persons with respect to identifi-

able health information which is created or

maintained in the provision of health ser-

vices.

The protocol for accessing one’s personal

health information, or a family member’s is

addressed in your facility’s specific policy,

which would likely include submission of a

formal request form to access health infor-

mation records. An individual that accesses

their laboratory test results or their family

member’s without the consent of their em-

ployer and in compliance with procedural

protocol, is breaching confidentiality. This

could result in serious and significant conse-

quences, including suspension and/or termi-

nation of employment and a complaint of

unprofessional conduct filed with the Col-

lege.

Ultimately, the best course of action is to

follow up with your physician and request a

copy of your test results and do not put

your professional and personal roles in con-

flict with one another.

Patient Information— A Laboratory Commodity

Volume 4, Issue 2

Page 12

Under the Microscope

Soap and Water & Common Sense: The Definitive Guide to Viruses, Bacteria, Parasites, and Disease Written by Dr. Bonnie Henry ISBN: 978-0-88784-812-4

House of Anansi Press, Toronto, 2009

A Book Review by John Buhler, MLT, BGS Edmonton, AB

Epidemiologist and preventa-tive medicine specialist Dr. Bon-nie Henry is the Director of Public Health Emergency Ser-vices at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and an Assistant Professor at the School of Population and Public Health at UBC. She has tracked Ebola and SARS, worked to eradicate polio in Pakistan and is the current chair of the Cana-dian Public Health Measures Task Group. Drawing upon her vast knowledge and experi-ence, Dr. Henry has written Soap and Water & Common Sense: The Definitive Guide to Viruses, Bacteria, Parasites, and Disease - an accessible and captivating book which will appeal to anyone with a gen-eral interest in human disease. In it she profiles a long list of microbial culprits from ancient scourges – evidence of infec-tion with tuberculosis, for ex-ample, has been found in 6000 year-old skeletons – to emerg-

ing pathogens.

Henry examines the modus op-erandi of these disease-causing organisms, and considers the various factors, such as basic hygiene, overuse of antibiotics, travel, and food processing which influence their transmis-sion. In particular, Dr. Henry

ing these divisions so clearly makes it easier for members of the general public to understand antibiotics are ineffective against viruses. The misuse of antibiotics is, in fact, a recurrent theme In

Soap and Water.

Dr. Henry also examines the modern origins of epidemiology and the 1847 cholera outbreak in London. As Henry notes, “ . . . more than 150 years later chol-era is still active in some parts of the world as a result of human conflict and strife . . .” With the recent epidemic in earthquake-devastated Haiti, medical science is once again fighting the same

foe.

Aimed at a general audience and published at the height of mobilization against the H1N1 flu, Soap and Water reflects con-cerns about the global pandemic and provides practical advice for avoiding many pathogenic mi-crobes. As the title suggests, peo-ple can and should take very simple and basic steps – whether at home or when visiting some exotic destination – to protect themselves from the agents of Microbes Inc. But it is more than simply a how-to-book, and pro-vides an interesting and insightful read to both specialists and

members of the general public.

raises concerns about food safety here at home, noting how modern industrialized methods of raising, warehous-ing, and processing livestock have created reservoirs for infectious agents and made our food supply vulnerable to pathogens like Salmonella, Campylobacter and E.coli

0157:H7.

Cleverly, she uses the concept

of “Microbes Inc.” throughout the book – no doubt influ-enced by the title of the popular animated film Mon-sters Inc. – to demonstrate the world of microbes has differ-ent “divisions” with specialized characteristics. For readers without any knowledge of microbiology this tactic effec-tively illustrates the diversity within the microbial world, including viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites. Present-

Editorial Policy

The purpose of this newsletter is to provide a means of communication between the

members of the College and its Council. The opinions expressed in Under the Micro-

scope are those of the contributors and do not constitutes official policy of the Col-

lege. The editor reserves the right to edit submissions as required.

301-9426 51 Avenue

Edmonton, AB T6E 5A6

1-800-265-9351